1. He/she is new to the internet. He/she does not know…
2. He/she is new to social media/social networking. He/she does not know…
3. He/she is not a geek. He/she does not know…

The excuse comes different ways but the root belief is the same: the person does not have the knowledge. Being new to the internet is a valid excuse because it is new to them. However, why isn’t the person taking the time to learn and not repeat their mistakes (or preventing themselves from making similar mistakes)? We were all new to the internet at one time. As time goes on the “new to the internet” excuse will only apply to kids as children are using the internet at a very young age and taught how to use the internet in school.

That leaves the second two points and I found that the mistakes these people tend to make fall into the categories of:

• Do you have common sense?
• Did you think AT ALL before you did what you did?
• Do you understand the long-term effects of what you do?

And the answer is: No!!! There is no valid excuse for an adult to do that.

Let’s look at an example….

Aimee Mann made the following comment on Twitter. She has, at the time of this writing, over 9,000 followers.

I understand not liking an actor/actress. Or being mad at a company, a boss, a friend, a spouse…displeasure is a part of life. However, there is a trend to make comments about someone as if the person cannot find out things said about them and who said it. What if they find out about it, then what? That is exactly what happened in Aimee’s case. Ice T found out what she said…and responded.

Can you guess what happened next? Yes, that is right. She found out about his response (read from the bottom up).

Aimee’s account is over a year old. The “She is new, she does not know” excuse does not apply to her. The reason this happened: not properly thinking through how Ice T would take her words if he found out about them, or even thinking that he could find out what she said. Another point she did not consider: what if some of her followers are Ice T fans? How would they take her remarks?

With thousands of followers, how can you forget it is a public real-time site? If you look at her Twitter stream, she responds and interacts with people. She knows it is public. Let’s be real and say what really happened. She was ragging and did not expect Ice T to find out what she said. When he did, and responded, she panicked.

Here is a better solution: instead of “ragging on TV stars” how about discussing the issues in the form of constructive criticism? If you train yourself to do this now it will become natural to you, saving you embarrassment in the end. It is a trait that will help you as you with your social interactions because you will begin mastering one of the traits most people using social networks do not have: how to handle yourself in social situations.

Think of the future…

The Library of Congress and Google will be storing tweets online. That means what you say publicly will be around long after you’re dead. The time is coming where people will be more aware, almost instantly, of things said about them.

And will find out you said it.

Let’s look at another example: Let’s say you make a smart remark about someone publicly. Perhaps how they talk, look, etc. They find out what you said, but do not say anything. Six months later, you attend a meet up and that person is there. Guaranteed he/she will remember what you said and still might not say anything to you. If this is a person in a professional setting, it is a strike against you. I have seen people say snarky things, attempting humor, about people in their industry – developers of the apps they use, creators of the software they use, owners of the companies they buy products from.

Stop being lazy…okay, I really mean annoying…

Yesterday I stopped using Sobees as my desktop Twitter application because it was acting sluggish. I went back to TweetDeck, which does not have persistent filters like Sobees does. For the first time in weeks, I was able to see all the stuff I blocked out using Sobees and how filters made my Twitter stream more relevant to what interested me. Here are a couple of examples of common sense “why do you do this” stuff that is really laziness or not thinking about the long-term effects of what the person was saying.

Google is your friend – It is an internet standard, search first, then ask. It is common courtesy to your followers to ask their help when you really need it, not when you are too lazy to look it up yourself. When people respond telling you to use a search engine that means they are informing you of your mistake. Listen and do not repeat it. If you think about it a minute, it really shows their mode of thinking, dependency, laziness…they have the tools to find the information but want someone else to do the job for them. I only ask questions when I cannot find the answer myself and that makes more people willing to help me (even strangers) because my reputation is not to take advantage.

Location-based services are great and there are games created within the service to make checking in (giving detailed information about yourself without you realizing it) more fun. Remember, the check-ins go into a government archive (and who knows what networks other entities will archive). When Google released Google Buzz, many people unsubscribed from those that merged their tweets with Buzz because the extra entries from Twitter created too much noise. What would make location-based check-ins any different? It is extra noise especially when many people are doing it. What value do check-ins have to your users? That extra noise limits your growth on the social site.

So many lessons to learn…

Think of social media or social networking as mingling in a party. It is a form of public interaction except it is real-time instant communication, stored some place by potentially anyone, forever. The tools we use change over time to adapt to current trends and innovations. It is your job to adapt with it. Use common sense, think about that you are doing and how your actions affect you six months from now or the people you are interacting with.

Adopting better habits now will really help you in the end. It is getting to the point that everything you say and everything you do online will have some sort of repercussions. Someone will like it or someone will hate it. Employers or potential mates can look back in time to judge maturity levels, the ability to handle responsibility, level of growth professionally, and personally, the ability to make sound business and financial decisions – this all being revealed online.

And it is about time everyone took responsibility for their actions. Stop making excuses.

1. People use Twitter all over the world. I wonder if other countries will have access to the archive? If not, they should start archiving now if this type of data interests them.
2. How will people feel about the government archiving their tweets? I don’t have a problem with it but I don’t put anything online that I wouldn’t mind being put on the front page of the New York Times.
3. People give away more about themselves than they realize. It’s time for adults to grow up and learn how what they say today might come back and haunt them tomorrow.

Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, Device Data may not be provided or disclosed to a third-party without Apple’s prior written consent. Accordingly, the use of third-party software in Your Application to collect and send Device Data to a third-party for processing or analysis is expressly prohibited.

On a mobile phone, targeted advertising is important (making the ads more relevant to the user). If the information is not being passed on, third-party advertisers cannot target the ads. This does not mean developers cannot make money. The worse case scenario is that they use iAds to generate income. iAds is Apple’s upcoming mobile ad network. Apple is allowing companies to embed interactive ads within their applications and will be charging 40% of the revenue for the privilege (yes, that is a high percentage). I wonder how their core audience will enjoy interactive ads in their applications when many use ad blockers in their browsers while surfing the internet. An interesting question: will ad blockers, on an Apple mobile device, be approved? Most likely not. The point is, there are options for developers to make money by either selling their applications or using iAds if ad companies will not be able to survive on Apple devices. There is no reason to go on rants or freak out if you are an application developer. If you are an ad company focusing on mobile devices, well, there is cause for concern but perhaps this is a sign to focus efforts in another direction.

Google wants to buy AdMobs, a company focusing on mobile advertising for multiple mobile devices. As I said earlier, I believe Apple is trying to hinder the growth of other mobile devices or at least keep their lead in mobile devices. Ironically, AdMobs works on Apple devices. With the new change, this could potentially hinder Google from profiting from Apple (if Google succeeds in purchasing AdMobs).

Let’s delve a bit deeper for a minute. I’ll use myself as an example. Right now, I’m playing We Rule on my iPhone (only application I use actually). It’s a cute little game and I would have paid for it if it were not free. When you play the game you have to create an account on the Plus+ network. You can manage your games, your profile, etc. Currently, if I move to another device, I cannot play We Rule on my new phone. Imagine a cross-platform world where, if I see a cool new phone, I decide to switch phones. If the company developing We Rule made the game cross-platform, I could install it on my new device, not lose any of the data (because their Plus+ network could store it). As a consumer, I’m happy. The developer’s of We Rule would be happy because they retained me as a player and they (theoretically) would not lose anything because a cross-platform ad company like AdMobs would continue to show me ads in the game. Or, if I purchased the game in cross-platform world, I could re-activate it on my new device. This makes it more like the computer experience consumers are used to. Not good for Apple because it makes it easier for their customers (who are not hard-core fans) to leave. Of course, this goes for all mobile device companies but with Apple having a lead and the iPhone being their best-selling device, they are current the ones with the most to lose.

The advertising change also hinders upcoming mobile ad companies from thriving. Currently, Apple’s mobile devices are the money makers so of course mobile ad companies would love to thrive on their devices. Fortunately for them, developers are slowly embracing other devices but one cannot fault them for wanting to develop where there is the most financial gain.

It will be interesting to see how Apple’s decisions play out over the upcoming months and how the competition (and users) responds to their decisions.

**Disclaimer: I have an iPhone but I am not a heavy application user. I’m a gamer and I tend to play games on the PC or consoles (I do own a Mac). Personally, I’d prefer to buy the application than go the free route, receiving targeted advertising. This change, or any of the changes Apple is making lately, really does not impact me very much.**

Jobs is once again pitting Apple’s complete product design mastery against the rest of the industry, except this time he thinks he will prevail. Whether it is his repeated moves to keep Adobe’s Flash off the iPhone or his growing rift with Google over Android, Jobs is making the iPhone and iPad a relatively closed system that Apple can control. All apps need to be approved by Apple, the ads shown on the apps will also start to go through Apple, and no matter how hard Adobe tries to open up the iPhone to its Flash developers Apple will keep blocking all its efforts.

You can do anything that you wanna do…

Let me be clear…it’s Apple’s system and they can make it closed if they want to. This approach did not work with Microsoft, so I would think they would have the same outcome if they become too big. However, Jobs is in a unique position. He is leading a company and might not be around to clean up the mess if it does not work long-term.

The odd and perplexing thing about this: most people prefer diversity. For example, most people would prefer to have multiple ways to earn income. How many people have multiple cars? Multiple gaming platforms? Do you eat and drink the same thing everyday? Using this thought trend, why would developers want to invest in only one platform when the “real” money (as in being bought out) comes with having multiple platform applications? True, you will have applications like Tweetie being purchased by Twitter but what are the odds of a company purchasing something like We Rule unless friends can play across multiple mobile phones? Can they be purchased? Sure they can, but they’d be more valuable if they created cross-platform games. Currently developers are flocking to the iPhone because their applications sell the best.

That is why I think this has more to do with Android than Adobe per se. Android phones are eating away at iPhone’s market share. As the phones get better, the more threat competing phones become. Flash is coming to Android phones, giving developers more options to create apps and a more web like experience for Android users. Perhaps Adobe is getting slammed by Apple because Apple’s competition is embracing Flash. Adobe does not make the bulk of their revenue from Flash development.

On the flip side, Apple’s biggest selling product is the iPhone. It could potentially hurt Apple long-term that Adobe makes products that aid developers in making applications for multiple platforms. Right now most of the applications on the iPhone are iPhone (iPad or iTouch) only unless. This will keep many people on Apple’s technology because they have become attached to the applications. The minute the door opens for easy cross-platform development, Apple’s market share drops.

Steve Jobs shut the door.

In the end…

Going against the grain of human nature is not wise. Hopefully their target audience will remain faithful to give Apple the foundation it needs to survive. Unfortunately, what goes up must come down. Rarely do companies stay at the top for long. AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo, even Google has competition as far as traffic (Facebook). Developers do not embrace programming for Macs and that trend might continue with Apple’s mobile devices. In the beginning there weren’t alternatives for developers. Now there are. It is understandable why Apple is doing this: they are appealing to their target audience, who does not mind lagging technology. Think about how long it took for copy/paste to make it to the iPhone. The recently released iPad does not have a camera, but the competition coming out shortly does. Companies should only concern themselves with creating quality products for their target audience. Apple is doing exactly that.

Unfortunately, while Apple is locking down their devices the competition is opening theirs up. If their competition combine forces, they are strong enough to block Apple from being able to keep their market share.

Daniel Brusilovsky is a 17-year old entrepreneur and student residing in the Silicon Valley. Daniel has been producing media content online since February 2007, and has hosted numerous podcasts along the way.

Daniel is also the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Teens in Tech Networks, a company that provides a suite of products to enable the youth to post their content online, as well as collaborate and interact with others. Teens in Tech Networks was founded in February 2008, and currently has 16 employees worldwide.

Sounds like Daniel has a good start going for him, does not it? Matter of fact, the Teens in Tech conference starts today. Unfortunately, for Daniel, he made a big mistake:

On Monday evening I received a phone call from someone I trust who told me that one of our interns had asked for compensation in exchange for a blog post. Specifically, this intern had allegedly asked for a Macbook Air in exchange for a post about a startup.

After an investigation we determined that the allegation was true. In fact, on at least one other occasion this intern was almost certainly given a computer in exchange for a post.

The intern in question has admitted to some of the allegations, and has denied others. We suspended this person while we were sorting through exactly what happened. When it became clear yesterday that there was no question that this person had requested, and in one case taken, compensation for a post, the intern was terminated.

Daniel potentially blew his career for a Macbook Air. You’d think, since his business employs 16 people, he could easily afford a Macbook Air. You’d also think he’d know better than to use his valuable TechCrunch connection to receive goods in exchange for entries. You’d think his ethics would be stronger than that. I know, he’s a kid right? Kids make mistakes. This “kid” is an entrepreneur holding conferences and employing people. Step into the adult ring with his actions, he does not get to pull the “I’m a kid” card. If he’s a “kid” he should not be CEO, should he? That is an adult position and he was punished as an adult. He was terminated, all this entries were deleted, and although not named in the entry initially, people figured out who the intern was, and the entry was edited to include a link to Daniel’s apology. I’m not buying the apology.

In some way or another, a line was crossed that should have never been. At this time, I do not want to go into details, but I will publicly say that I am truly sorry to my family, friends, TechCrunch, and especially the tech community.

He did not take responsibility for what he did. He did not admit what he did. How can someone be sincerely sorry without owning up for what they did? Sorry he was busted…no doubt. Sorry for what he did? It’s not showing in his apology entry. I wonder if the people at TechCrunch believes his apology. The timing of the exposure is perfect. TechCrunch could have waited until after the conference to expose Daniel. Let me be clear, I’m glad they didn’t, because this is part of the learning experience. Daniel betrayed people who trusted him and misused his authority. It is fitting he has to deal with his betrayal during his tech conference, just as an adult would, but what about after the conference? How does one recover from a big screw up like this?

The Recovery

Personally, I think Daniel needs to leave tech alone. His ethics do not match what is needed in the industry for success. People do not change overnight. If he tried to receive a Macbook Air, there are probably other areas where he crossed the line ethically. Getting caught does not change the way a person thinks, often it just makes them smarter in how they break the rules.

Let’s say the goal is to stay in technology, how does one recover? It’s a lengthy process. One Google search will always bring up what Daniel did, which is why he has to own up to it to atone. Talking about what he did, using himself as an example on how easy it can be to cross the line, and showing his process of moving forward will slowly gain respect from his readers. Honestly, many teens and adults would cross the line. Just because an opportunity for success arises does not mean the person is ready to maintain the success. Daniel had an opportunity, he blew it, and would have to earn it back by rebuilding the trust he broke. Talking about the situation over time would eventually over-shadow the news about his mistake. There is one caveat.

He can never screw up like this again.

If he makes another ethical mistake, it would be much worse as the previous mistake would arise along with the current one. Doing nothing means the mistake will always follow him. Atoning means his ethics changed, and that takes time to prove. If he thinks he can “be a kid” and come back later to the industry, he’s mistaken. This will always follow him and will be like a thorn in his side unless he deals with it.

Why Microsoft isn’t “scared”

Chrome OS and Microsoft target very different audiences (regarding computing). True, Microsoft was able to capture a large portion of the low-end internet user audience by default but Microsoft’s true target is businesses and those who need connectivity with their business offerings. The Chrome OS, as advertised, is for the light internet user. When I say light, I am not describing time. They use email, they connect to social sites, they browse the web, etc.

What about the millions of people who make videos, put them on their computers, use video editing software to edit them, then upload them – retaining a copy on their computer? What about pictures you take with your phone or digital camera? Most people store them on a computer. How many people blog and keep a copy of databases on their computer in case of disk failure?

And let’s not forget the people who play video games. Console gaming is fun but there are some games that do not play well on a console. Considering the number of good games coming to the PC, Microsoft does not have to worry about web-only computers. They have other concerns they should focus on.

So, what will happen?

Usually people purchase computers based on what they want to do with them and the price of the computer. The cost of computers dropped to the point almost anyone can afford one. The real question: if you have two computers, one doing significantly more than the other for slightly more money, which would you pick? The Chrome OS is perfect for kids, for example, but eventually most kids will want to do more with their computer than browse the web and check email.

But more important, the wise person does not keep everything online. The lazy person won’t think about the implications of everything being stored online until it is too late. A person serious about their online data has multiple backups, perhaps online and on their hard drive for the blog, email, videos, pictures, etc. If the data is important then it should be treated as such. How many horror stories does one have to read about someone losing everything because taking precautions to ensure it does not happen to you as well?

There is a clear market for this type of computer. I will most likely pick up one for travel if the price is right. It is a security precaution to travel with a computer that doesn’t have important data on it. It also seems like a good computer for beginners. There is a niche for Chrome OS…

That does not mean that those who purchase a Chrome OS computer won’t have a PC, Mac or another computer with an OS that does more. There isn’t much difference between the Chrome OS computer description and smart phones, is there?

Written by: Tyme White | Follow Tyme on Twitter | Be Friends on Facebook

Remove a site from Google? What? Noooo!!!!

The interview was posted on YouTube on 11/6/09. People lost their minds about it 11/9/09. I was amused then I became irritated at the silliness of people rants. A couple of A-List bloggers said Murdoch was foolish for removing content from Google and the drone followers sang the same tune, in a crescendo harmony that became highly annoying. They called Murdoch an idiot, a moron, stupid…a long list of names.

We shall ignore the people making these claims not having shit or accomplished shit compared to Murdoch. Just sayin’….

Have you ever searched Google (or any search engine) looking for content, think you found a good article, click over and find that it is a premium article you need to pay for? Did you pay or did you go back to the search engine and find another article? Most people do not pay. The site has subscribers so they do not rely on search engine traffic. They have other marketing methods to secure paying customers.

If one were to do the math on how much it costs to provide free content versus how much it costs to have premium content, the costs might be more in line for premium content. Traffic might be less but it is quality traffic, people who like the site enough to pay for the content. The people paying are their true target audience, which is much easier to provide content for.

So what’s the problem?

People don’t know when to shut up

It is ironic that one of the things people say they love about America is freedom of choice. Yet, when one tries to use their freedom of choice, they are criticized for it. Murdoch has a very good point: all content should not be free. That is a ridiculous assumption. Do you like to work for free? No? Why? You need money? Really? Companies need to make money to pay employees. Go figure…and you’d think the people criticizing Murdoch volunteered their services to their employer every day.

Yes, search engines send a lot significant traffic to NewsCorp sites, but so does Digg. The Digg Effect will bring you a ton of traffic, eating up a ton of bandwidth, but most of those visitors do not stay. Let’s also consider that if NewsCorp decided to charge for content they would be attempting to reach a completely different audience, using different marketing strategies, etc. They would have a smaller target audience, less expenses and not necessarily less income.

Newspapers are hurting. Wise business people try to avoid problems prior to them affecting them. Electronic newspapers are fine. I have no problem paying for services I use. The target audience they are attempting to reach would not have a problem paying for content.

Let’s be real: If the decision is made to make NewsCorp articles premium content, will the world come to an end? No. If you don’t want to pay, you’ll find the content elsewhere. You might whine for a little bit but life will continue because one of the beautiful things about the news: it is everywhere. Even if other newspapers follow suit and become premium content only, there are other sources for news – like TV stations putting news online for free.

And Murdoch is smart enough to know that.

Written by: Tyme White | Follow Tyme on Twitter | Be Friends on Facebook

• Working on Argent Tournament.
• Working towards a Netherwing Drake.
• Doing daily quests…daily.
• Working on the Explorer/Loremaster achievements.
• This week is Children’s Week.
• Just found out Dark Moon Faire started yesterday.
• Working on Sons of Hordir reputation.

There are a zillion other things to do in game that I have not begun to do. For example, while leveling to 80 I leveled so quickly (yes people, I said quickly) this happened:

I play a level 80 Death Knight and there are entire zones I have not seen:

• All the lower zones under level 55 (Death Knights start at 55).
• Obviously I missed at lot of Outlands (see the screenshot?).
• I haven’t seen all of Northrend (especially as new things are adding).

I’m definitely getting my monies worth.

With so much to do, along with balancing life and business responsibilities, one has to have the mindset everything cannot be accomplished at once.

RSS vs. Twitter

Reading Dare’s article today about how RSS readers are like email clients I couldn’t help but laugh because it is all about the person’s frame of mind.

When it comes to blogs and other casual content, this model breaks down. I really don’t need a constant nagging reminder that I haven’t read the half dozen reposts of the same tech news stories about Google, Twitter and Facebook after I’ve seen the first one. Furthermore, if I haven’t fired up my reader in a while then I don’t care to be nagged about all the stuff I missed since they are just blogs so it is OK if I never read them.

Simple solution: mark them read and continue on with your day. Better solution – unsubscribe to the feeds you never really read. Unless someone’s job revolves around RSS (for example, someone with a web site covering technology and the news he/she writes about comes via RSS) the unread items do not have to be read. Just like all tweets do not have to be read. Just like I don’t have to complete every activity in World of Warcraft. Or go to every party on Saturday night. Or keep in touch with every person I met over the years.

See the pattern? As always it boils down to freedom of choice. To get the news on Twitter as efficiently in RSS one has to either:

• Make a group to separate the “news” from friends and pray the “news” people only tweet about news.
• Keep Twitter open 24/7.

And let’s be real about the Twitter being efficient. Retweeting is the most inefficient way of spreading news. The people retweeting mean well and it is wonderful they share their finds. However, the odds of receiving the same news article multiple times on Twitter is much higher than in RSS.

Most people miss the majority of tweets they have access to and do not feel guilty if they miss the tweets – even from friends and loved ones. Add the same carefree attitude to RSS and the problem is solved.

Don’t let your frame of mind limit you.

Just like Stryker did in the movie. Look how crazy he was.

What is a Conflict of Interest?

Wikipedia has a good definition:

More generally, conflict of interests can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit.

Here are some examples of conflict of interest from the same article:

• Self-dealing, in which public and private interests collide, for example issues involving privately held business interests.
• Outside employment, in which the interests of one job contradict another,
• Family interests, in which a spouse, child, or other close relative is employed (or applies for employment) or where goods or services are purchased from such a relative or a firm controlled by a relative. For this reason, many employment applications ask if one is related to a current employee. If this is the case, the relative could then recuse from any hiring decisions.
• Gifts from friends who also do business with the person receiving the gifts. (Such gifts may include non-tangible things of value such as transportation and lodging.)

Now that we have a basic definition let’s get back to Stryker. In the movie, Stryker is a religious fanatic. He killed his wife and mutant son (not shown in the movie) because he felt the birth of his mutant son was a sign from God to destroy mutants. Stryker, holding military positions, had a conflict of interest. His desire to kill mutants over-shadowed everything and was fueled by the positions he had in the military – giving him power to do things outside normal realms.

That’s Easy to See But What About This?

Ok, Stryker is an over-the-top example of conflict of interest. Easy to see, right? Ok, let’s try a more subtle example.

Alan meets a girl (Crystal) and he thinks she’s really cool. He’d like to get to know her better and of course, have sex with her. Crystal thinks Alan is okay and would like to get to know him better to see if he’s boyfriend material. Crystal decides to Google Alan…and she finds his MySpace and Facebook profiles. She sends a friends request, which Alan accepts because he “can’t” say no and still want to get to know her (without angering her) can he?

Crystal looks at the MySpace page and notices there is a woman with the first top left friend slot. She looks at the comments and sees the same woman making comments that imply they are a couple, or dating seriously. Next, she goes to Facebook. The MySpace girl isn’t a friend on Facebook but there is another woman posting comments daily. Crystal knows what that means because she’s done it herself. She looks at both profiles and the relationship status is Single. Crystal becomes angry because she specifically asked Alan if he was single and he said yes.

Next time Alan called her, Crystal asked about the two women. Alan said nothing was going on, they were just friends…and implied Crystal was “tripping” (he is single…he’s not married). While he explained Crystal was looking at the two profiles, looking at what the women said, and thinking Alan must think she’s stupid.

See the conflict of interest? In case you don’t…Alan desire to get to know Crystal better overruled being honest so Crystal can trust him. She called him out and he continued to lie.

Conflict Of Interest Takes You Down the Wrong Path

Stryker’s desire to kill mutants took him down the horrible path of killing and destroying innocent people. Alan’s conflict of interest caused him to lie to a girl that might have been “wifey” material. You can always tell a conflict of interest…

… because the person won’t let it go.

No matter how many people tried to reason with Stryker, he wouldn’t discontinue his mission. Alan, when confronted with his situation, continued to lie about it. In both cases, it’s end-game. To “stop” Stryker would have to give up his military position and reform. If Alan wants any type of relationship with Crystal those girls need to disappear – not hide from view – disappear.

What Alan doesn’t realize is that as long as those two other women are around it is a reminder he lied to Crystal. They were important enough to lie about. How can Crystal forgive him for lying if the women he lied about are still around? Hiding them from view isn’t good enough because when they reappear, unless he blows them off, it reminds Crystal again he lied to her. If Crystal is important, he’d remove the one girl from the top friend slot (if she’s not his girl she shouldn’t be there in the first place), set things straight with both women (ie: blow them off cause they have different agendas) and never put himself in that position again.

How often does a single guy do that? Let’s say almost never and move on…

Spotting the Conflicts….

The more efficient you become spotting conflicts of interest, the more time you’ll save wasting your time on people who are in direct conflict with what you want to achieve. Stryker wasn’t trying to help anyone, he was trying to destroy mutants. Anyone siding with him thinking in the end good would prevail was wasting their time. Crystal, looking for boyfriend material, was obviously looking in the wrong direction at Alan. In Crystal’s case, she spotted it quick and if she walks away the time she’ll waste trying get to know Alan (while he gets it together) she could be spending on a man that already has it together. No one is perfect but lying is not a trait one should look for in the person they want to get involved with. In life, we’ll always be confronted with conflicts of interest…the strong people remove themselves from them because they realize, in the end, it won’t work.

You can’t “win” with someone that has a conflict of interest because pleasing themselves overrules doing what is right.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine: The Quick Review

The movie was good, definitely geared towards people not familiar with the comic. For those unfamiliar the movie has unexpected twists and turns where the balance of action/story is more balanced. For those familiar with the story (like myself) you might walk away wishing their was more action. They did a decent job staying true to the original story lines. I enjoyed it and I recommend going to see it.